[JohnFerrier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Yes! Think of amps (or source devices, if you will)! How much do you think would they contribute to further signal distortion? Almost unmeasurably -- but audibly nonetheless. You can't pretend that once the signal had to go through a sound transducer it's so crippled that source, amp or recording doesn't matter anymore...

Actually, I wonder if the bar to a stereo setup with inaudible differences isn't lower than people expect.


JF

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFerrier Actually, I wonder if the bar to a stereo setup with inaudible differences isn't lower than people expect.

It's very individual.

 

[JohnFerrier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ It's very individual.

"I can only imagine"

different cables,
hear the noise,
like shells on a beach;

put them to ears,
"if you dare",
and hear in each

a different ocean.


JF

 

[rhfactor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Establish? What's your point? I've just measured inductance and capacitance, and the latter measuring values prove the assumption about the Zu Mobius having a particularly high capacitance wrong. The multimeter's «crappiness» only applies to the resolution with low inductance values, after all the closeness of both cables is recognizable, as well as the slightly higher inductance with the Zu Mobius. But you're free to prefer the unproven assumption of the Mobius' high capacitance if it fits your idea better.

"Establish" and "prove" are synonyms. A single (i.e. unreproduced), inaccurate, and/or imprecise measurement can prove nothing.
Quote:

True! I've never thought the perceived differences had to do with measurable frequency-response deviations. But of course it has to do with psychoacoustic effects, as all audio phenomena. I'm just convinced that it's not a placebo effect. The effect is absolutely consistent; no cable I own has ever changed its sonic characteristic, except for decent burn-in effects.

Since you believe that there are immeasurable but yet audible differences, how do you propose it is possible to prove or disprove your belief? Are skeptics wasting our breath because you could simply never be convinced, regardless of whatever evidence contrary to your opinion is produced? (I will refrain from rolling my eyes at the notion of cable burn-in.)
Quote:

Yes, I do believe in measurements if they correspond to the listening impression. Otherwise they just show that the fundamental criteria such as frequency response and electrical values are within acceptable tolerances for the intended purpose, nothing more -- just as with active electronic devices, where they don't reflect sonic differences either.

In other words, you don't believe in the scientific method. Which leads me to believe nothing would ever convince you that the "improvement" in sound is a figment of your imagination. Which in turn leads me to believe that there is no point in trying to hold a debate.

You will note that skeptics are willing to believe that cables cause differences in the way things sound! All we would require as proof would be a reproducible DBT. Some of us (myself included) would even accept a reproducible frequency-response graph that shows audible differences in the signal reproduction of two cables at certain frequencies. Psychologists and audiologists have produced a concept of a "JND", a "just noticeable difference", which for different frequencies ranges from 0.2 - 1.0 dB. This is the minimum difference in SPL which is detectable by human ears in 50% of trials. (At non-audible frequencies the JND would be infinite since we can't hear them.)

 

[KZEE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhfactor How can one possibly "draw the conclusion" that something "likely occurs"? Saying "I have concluded that it is a possibility" hardly concludes anything at all. Ignoring this, I said that it's "indicative", not anything so strong as a conclusion. I merely find it slightly suspicious. You may think what you will of this.

Well, after going back and rereading your post, I again believe that what you're plainly stating is that you agree with rodbac that the Zu most likely colors the sound - I don't understand why you feel as if I mischaracterized what you've said. But in order to save time, why don't we agree that the conclusion you've drawn in that post is that you might agree rodbac that the Zu possibly colors the sound. (Talk about your firm commitments!) OK then? The problem I see with your stance is the fact that Zu not submitting a sample for review is given as the basis for your maybe agreeing with rodbac that the Zu might be coloring the sound. And my point is that it would seem to me that actually measuring and listening to the Zu would be a more concrete basis on which to comment on any influences the Zu may or may not have on the sound.
You seem to be sceptical - and please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing your beliefs - but you seem to be sceptical of those that believe cabling influences the sound that comes out of the speakers or headphones of our stereo systems - I'd be curious as to what wires, cables, amps, sources, etc., you have personally had experience with that leads you to be so sceptical. For example, which brands of speaker wires have you had experience with in what system (type/brand of speakers, type/brand of amp, type/brand of source, etc.) that has led you to conclude that you don't hear audible differences between speaker wires? Or you could share your experiences with headphone cables making no difference in your system if you so desired. Because I mean you must have had some type of personal experience with these items that would lead you to be so suspicious of the audible differences in cabling that some claim to hear. (And I would welcome any other members of the DBT/measurement crowd to share their own personal experiences with cabling that have led them to also be so sceptical of the differences some claim to hear in cabling.)

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhfactor "Establish" and "prove" are synonyms. A single (i.e. unreproduced), inaccurate, and/or imprecise measurement can prove nothing.

Now that's new to me: Even measurements have to be double(blind) to be credible in the eyes of the skeptics! After all the resulting data don't even hurt your world view in terms of cables, but rather support the no-difference scenario...

Well, be assured that I have measured more than once, I just can't remember how many times. Again, what's your point? Does the fact that Zu Cable has refused to send a Mobius sample still prove that it has high capacitance, but my measuring proves nothing? So that's how the world of a typical cable skeptic looks like...

Quote:

Since you believe that there are immeasurable but yet audible differences, how do you propose it is possible to prove or disprove your belief?

First: it's not my belief that cables make a difference, but my experience that they do so -- and trusting my ears is a normal thing for me regardless of the equipment category. Like with other, less disputed hi-fi components I think it's important to have experience with the subject, and it's downright arrogant to talk of «belief» in the context of perceived cable sound when the own standpoint is in fact exclusively based on ideology and belief.

Quote:

Are skeptics wasting our breath because you could simply never be convinced, regardless of whatever evidence contrary to your opinion is produced? (I will refrain from rolling my eyes at the notion of cable burn-in.) In other words, you don't believe in the scientific method. Which leads me to believe nothing would ever convince you that the "improvement" in sound is a figment of your imagination. Which in turn leads me to believe that there is no point in trying to hold a debate.

You notice that your world is full of «beliefs»?

But this time you're right: I will never be convinced that cables make no difference, just as little as I could be convinced that the differences I hear with headphones and electronics are pure placebo effect. In this sense: no, I don't believe in the «scientific method» you have in mind.

Quote:

You will note that skeptics are willing to believe that cables cause differences in the way things sound! All we would require as proof would be a reproducible DBT. Some of us (myself included) would even accept a reproducible frequency-response graph that shows audible differences in the signal reproduction of two cables at certain frequencies.

I don't believe in DBT. You said you're willing to believe that cables cause differences -- well, that's not a common attitude with skeptics. But have you actually tried some of them yourself with really open ears instead of claiming for proofs before accepting what you might possibly hear? I don't think you'll find significant measuring differences with cables corresponding to the perceived characteristics -- at least not with conventional measuring signals. Do we know what signal characteristics are responsible for the sonic differences with amps?

Of course there will never be a consensus between subjectivists and objectivists. There will always be people who just refuse to try cables themselves, and even if they consider that they could hear a difference while doing so, it would be a placebo effect in their view. Because of their inner conviction that there can be none.

 

[breez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I don't believe in DBT.

Please elaborate why.

 

[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ First: it's not my belief that cables make a difference, but my experience that they do so -- and trusting my ears is a normal thing for me regardless of the equipment category. Like with other, less disputed hi-fi components I think it's important to have experience with the subject, and it's downright arrogant to talk of «belief» in the context of perceived cable sound when the own standpoint is in fact exclusively based on ideology and belief.

Bull. You also claim that objectivists are operating under an ideology, while simultaneously stating that you operate under no such ideology. In fact, you are just operating under a different paradigm (in the Kuhnian sense of the term). You perceive the same phenomenon in a different way, because you have an entirely different theory for how that phenomenon exists. Just because you trust your senses more doesn't mean you're more open in your beliefs.
Quote:

I don't believe in DBT. You said you're willing to believe that cables cause differences -- well, that's not a common attitude with skeptics. But have you actually tried some of them yourself with really open ears instead of claiming for proofs before accepting what you might possibly hear? I don't think you'll find significant measuring differences with cables corresponding to the perceived characteristics -- at least not with conventional measuring signals. Do we know what signal characteristics are responsible for the sonic differences with amps? Of course there will never be a consensus between subjectivists and objectivists. There will always be people who just refuse to try cables themselves, and even if they consider that they could hear a difference while doing so, it would be a placebo effect in their view. Because of their inner conviction that there can be none.

I'm firmly in the objective camp you describe. I have listened to headphone amps, and several different sound cards, and at least one power cable, and even though I have experienced differences in sound I could probably describe, that still doesn't mean that I actually believe those differences actually exist. There is such a thing as knowing one's limitations and not trusting your senses, according to the well-known laws of psychology, which one side of this argument is using as a key point, and the other side is ignoring.

But there is also such a thing as changing your beliefs in the light of new evidence, and I will certainly believe that cables cause a difference for the better if somebody gives good objective reasons for it being the case. I already believe that solid state amps can differ considerably, based on my own blind tests, although there were issues in the way I conducted them so I can't really toot my own horn just yet on that.

I agree that it takes a significant paradigm shift for objectivists to be able to explain audible cable differences beyond glaring LC differences, of which your Zu comparison did NOT identify. Expectation bias and placebo are theories that explain so many things that other theories cannot explain. But every listener has some notion of "reasonably" high end equipment, objectivist or not, and that can be influenced considerably whether or not DBTs exist for that equipment. So I don't think skeptic's mindsets are quite as rigid as you think.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius Bull. You also claim that objectivists are operating under an ideology, while simultaneously stating that you operate under no such ideology. In fact, you are just operating under a different paradigm (in the Kuhnian sense of the term). You perceive the same phenomenon in a different way, because you have an entirely different theory for how that phenomenon exists. Just because you trust your senses more doesn't mean you're more open in your beliefs.

I think I'm more open in my beliefs than those who I have debated in this thread. On the one hand, while I have experienced audible differences between cables and do not believe it is all psychosomatic, I acknowledge what the science says, I find it interesting, relevant, and worthy of consideration, and I don't claim that the science itself is flawed. It's just that, based on my own experience, I have found that cables make an audbile difference, notwithstanding what the current state of the science would lead you to believe. (And I before I tried them, I did not believe that they could make a difference.) On the other hand, there are several people in this thread arguing that the science is absolutely right and will not evolve such that audible differences will ever be scientifically explained, that there cannot possible be any audible differences in cables, that the people who hear the differences are being deluded by psycosomatic effects, and that they themselves don't need to even try any such cables to factor in their own experience because it cannot possibly make a difference. Let's see, who's more open minded? Hmmm.

 

[JohnFerrier]

I don't like listening tests (JaZZ seems to indicate this too). I think that they are very tricky. Our ears work over a wide dynamic range, but are not sensitive to small changes. This is why a log scale (dB) is used to correlate signal levels to what is audible.

Looking carefully at the numbers, one better sees the magnitude of the problem. Differences in capacitance and inductance affect frequencies beyond the range of hearing >20khz. Noise is the only audible quality left in cables. My amplifiers is a very low noise design. I calculate it to be <37dB *below* audiblility. This is over the audible range 20hz to 20khz. Cable noise is immeasureable: <40db below audibility. Now, translating this out of a log scale that is 100 times *below* audiblity. Yes, physics does not explain everything. However, there are still boundaries. Small immeasureable things don't somehow make a large effect (which is the only way we could hear a difference).

If someone could present information regarding a formal study that supports that people hear differences in cables, I'm interested (this thread alone has gone on for about two weeks now, I'm still waiting...). Cable companys don't seem to provide this (kind of odd). Certainly, people from cable companies follow this website, can they provide info? I'll admit that I haven't looked too carefully, but I don't even see that cable companies actually claim that they do make an audible difference (lots of info about build quality and "burn-in"; no claim about audibility...hmmm).

I don't know anything about psychosomatic and placebo effect, so don't try to explain things this way. Further, I'm rarely self-assured, but have taken on such tone for arguments sake (not simply to argue, but to get to the bottom of this...).

Headphone transducers are the least transparent component of the playback system, wire is the most transparent component. I like to read what people think about headphones, differences in headphones certainly are audible.


JF

 

[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS I think I'm more open in my beliefs than those who I have debated in this thread. On the one hand, while I have experienced audible differences between cables and do not believe it is all psychosomatic, I acknowledge what the science says, I find it interesting, relevant, and worthy of consideration, and I don't claim that the science itself is flawed. It's just that, based on my own experience, I have found that cables make an audbile difference, notwithstanding what the current state of the science would lead you to believe. (And I before I tried them, I did not believe that they could make a difference.) On the other hand, there are several people in this thread arguing that the science is absolutely right and will not evolve such that audible differences will ever be scientifically explained, that there cannot possible be any audible differences in cables, that the people who hear the differences are being deluded by psycosomatic effects, and that they themselves don't need to even try any such cables to factor in their own experience because it cannot possibly make a difference. Let's see, who's more open minded? Hmmm.

Yeah, I guess you have me there. If one can document a difference in a well conducted double blind test, and explain it though a physical phenomenon, then you have a good and reasonable objective explanation for the audibility. Even just the DBT is enough to convince people, but until a physical explanation is made, it's still unclear if/why some cables are better than others. If people start throwing out ad hominem attacks in that case, or even attacking the hypothetical argument, it's clear who's the loser.

I haven't really seen any believable physical explanation yet, though. Including capacitance or inductance.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFerrier Looking carefully at the numbers, one better sees the magnitude of the problem. Differences in capacitance and inductance affect frequencies beyond the range of hearing >20khz. Noise is the only audible quality left in cables. My amplifiers is a very low noise design. I calculate it to be <37dB *below* audiblility. This is over the audible range 20hz to 20khz. Cable noise is immeasureable: <40db below audibility. Now, translating this out of a log scale that is 100 times *below* audiblity. Yes, physics does not explain everything. However, there are still boundaries. Small immeasureable things don't somehow make a large effect (which is the only way we could hear a difference.

John, doesn't this type of argument also apply to amps, i.e., aren't the differences, if any, of extremely small magnitude, yet people don't seem to dispute there are audible differences between amps? I know this issue was raised before somewhere in the 28 or so pages, but I don't remember if there was ever an explanation.

 

[JohnFerrier]

Hi Phil,

Amplifiers have significantly higher measureable qualities that affect sound. Amplifiers have THD (maybe 0.01%), but wires have *no* THD (<0.00001%). My guess is that differences in amplifiers are possible but difficult to hear (tube amplifiers excluded--they carry with them even higher levels of THD and noise). If you look at sources, they can have 100+ of dynamic range, 110+ of signal to noise, etc. Okay, now I've got a SACD, well now I've got 103+ dynamic range and 116 of S/N. Well, I listen at about 85 db (typical max.), so that means that there is just more signal that is inaudible (0 dB is the threshold of audibility of someone with perfect hearing).

Back to wires. The only reason I stick my neck out on wires and cable burn-in (not transducer burn-in) is because to the very best of my knowledge there is no technical reason that there are difference. If there are real audible improvements, I would really like to know...

Transducer THD: ~0.1% (probably, very best case)
Amplifier THD: <0.01%
Cable THD: <0.00001%


JF

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius Bull. You also claim that objectivists are operating under an ideology, while simultaneously stating that you operate under no such ideology.

That's not correct. The ideology accusation is only addressed to people who claim that there are or can be no differences with cables. And of course someone using the term «believer» for persons who hear differences counts to this category.

Quote:

In fact, you are just operating under a different paradigm (in the Kuhnian sense of the term). You perceive the same phenomenon in a different way, because you have an entirely different theory for how that phenomenon exists. Just because you trust your senses more doesn't mean you're more open in your beliefs.

I neither have a plausible theory nor do I believe. Unless trusting your own senses is a belief in your view. I hear the differences without a clue what causes them, and I just let it happen.

Quote:

I'm firmly in the objective camp you describe. I have listened to headphone amps, and several different sound cards, and at least one power cable, and even though I have experienced differences in sound I could probably describe, that still doesn't mean that I actually believe those differences actually exist. There is such a thing as knowing one's limitations and not trusting your senses, according to the well-known laws of psychology, which one side of this argument is using as a key point, and the other side is ignoring.

Yes, you're really an objectivist!

But do you swallow all the chemicals the modern medicine describes you? Because the medicine industry knows better than yourself what's good for you? Trust your own senses? Humans are absolutely unreliable! Well, they are, but the human hearing is nevertheless an extremely sensitive sense organ, much more differentiating than every measuring instrument. It's a pity not to make use of it. If an impression is absolutely continuous, such as the sonic characteristic of an amp or a cable, there's no reason to think it's imagined.

Quote:

But there is also such a thing as changing your beliefs in the light of new evidence, and I will certainly believe that cables cause a difference for the better if somebody gives good objective reasons for it being the case. I already believe that solid state amps can differ considerably, based on my own blind tests, although there were issues in the way I conducted them so I can't really toot my own horn just yet on that.

Great! I think you're not the typical objectivist I would call biased by ideology. I was a cable skeptic myself, and even now I see no reason why cables should cause sonic differences. If I hadn't heard them myself I wouldn't believe it too. I had no such expectations when I first tried some new cables in my setup. But the difference was glaring. And I didn't like it at all. I went back to my cheap cables I had then, and the world was alright again. So my first encounter with cables was a negative one, but actually positive if you will. I think any measurable differences with cables would be of a similar shape as those among solid-state amps, although of reduced intensity.

Quote:

I agree that it takes a significant paradigm shift for objectivists to be able to explain audible cable differences beyond glaring LC differences, of which your Zu comparison did NOT identify. Expectation bias and placebo are theories that explain so many things that other theories cannot explain. But every listener has some notion of "reasonably" high end equipment, objectivist or not, and that can be influenced considerably whether or not DBTs exist for that equipment. So I don't think skeptic's mindsets are quite as rigid as you think.

Well, there are skeptics and skeptics.

 

[JohnFerrier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ That's not correct. The ideology accusation is only addressed to people who claim that there are or can be no differences with cables. And of course someone using the term «believer» for persons who hear differences counts to this category. I neither have a plausible theory nor do I believe. Unless trusting your own senses is a belief in your view. I hear the differences without a clue what causes them, and I just let it happen. Yes, you're really an objectivist! But do you swallow all the chemicals the modern medicine describes you? Because the medicine industry knows better than yourself what's good for you? Trust your own senses? Humans are absolutely unreliable! Well, they are, but the human hearing is nevertheless an extremely sensitive sense organ, much more differentiating than every measuring instrument. It's a pity not to make use of it. If an impression is absolutely continuous, such as the sonic characteristic of an amp or a cable, there's no reason to think it's imagined. Great! I think you're not the typical objectivist I would call biased by ideology. I was a cable skeptic myself, and even now I see no reason why cables should cause sonic differences. If I hadn't heard them myself I wouldn't believe it too. I had no such expectations when I first tried some new cables in my setup. But the difference was glaring. And I didn't like it at all. I went back to my cheap cables I had then, and the world was alright again. So my first encounter with cables was a negative one, but actually positive if you will. I think any measurable differences with cables would be of a similar shape as those among solid-state amps, although of reduced intensity. Well, there are skeptics and skeptics.

In light of the technical reasons against audible difference, no one can reference to a formal DBT or a ABX test that supports that cables have audible differences because....?


JF